# Aaiya @ Irshad Ahmad v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 12 ILRA 232
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-12-22
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 2926 of 2023
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/aaiya-irshad-ahmad-v-state-of-u-p-49552
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 82, 82(1), 82(2), 82(3) &
438 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections
120-B, 201, 211, 195, 307, 363, 366, 376,
504 & 506 - Application for Anticipatory Bail -
FIR - lodged against three persons, excluding
the applicant - allegations that the accused
assaulted the informant's son, with one of
them allegedly firing at him, causing a gunshot
injury - Investigation Findings: Accused claims
the incident was fabricated by the informant to
file a false FIR, aiming to create pressure
regarding another FIR filed against him -
Applicant has no criminal history - Final report
submitted
-
Co-accused
already
granted
anticipatory bail - Proclamation issued under
Section 82 CrPC cited as grounds for opposition
-
However,
settled
law
dictates
that
anticipatory bail cannot be denied solely on this
basis without considering the merits of the
application - Court finds that, (i) Medico-legal
examination report does not correspond with
independent witness St.ments, - (ii) one of the
named accused persons St.d that applicant had
enticed away his younger sister regarding
which an FIR u/s 363, 366, 376 IPC is
lodged against him in which informant and
his family were pressurizing them for
settlement, - (iii) The offences alleged in
the FIR carry a maximum sentence of seven
years' imprisonment, - (iv) Besides the
St.ment of a named co-accused person,
there is no other material to prima facie
establish
applicant's
complicity
in
commission of the offence, - (v) even that
named accused person has not assigned
any specific role to the applicant - Held,
keeping
in
view
the
fact
that
the
proceedings
u/s
82
CrPC
have
been
initiated, this court has to consider the
other facts and circumstances of the case
also - Therefore, in view of the aforesaid
fact are sufficient for making out a case for
granting interim anticipatory Bail to the
applicant - Accordingly, is an interim
measure, and that till the next date of
listing applicant shall be released on interim
anticipatory bail - subject to any other
conditions that may be fixed by the trial
court - Application remains pending. (Para
- 23, 25, 26, 30)

Application remains pending, but interim
Bail granted. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the petitioners have failed to show any
ambiguity
or
arbitrariness
or
unreasonableness
in
the
impugned
Government Orders.

(36)

The
above-captioned
writ
petitions
are,
accordingly,
dismissed
leaving it open to the parties to bear their
own costs.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 232
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438
Cr.P.C. No. 2926 of 2023

Aaiya @ Irshad Ahmad ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
Manoj Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 82, 82(1), 82(2), 82(3) &
438 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections
120-B, 201, 211, 195, 307, 363, 366, 376,
504 & 506 - Application for Anticipatory Bail -
FIR - lodged against three persons, excluding
the applicant - allegations that the accused
assaulted the informant's son, with one of
them allegedly firing at him, causing a gunshot
injury - Investigation Findings: Accused claims
the incident was fabricated by the informant to
file a false FIR, aiming to create pressure
regarding another FIR filed against him -
Applicant has no criminal history - Final report
submitted
-
Co-accused
already
granted
anticipatory bail - Proclamation issued under
Section 82 CrPC cited as grounds for opposition
-
However,
settled
law
dictates
that
anticipatory bail cannot be denied solely on this
basis without considering the merits of the
application - Court finds that, (i) Medico-legal
examination report does not correspond with
independent witness St.ments, - (ii) one of the
named accused persons St.d that applicant had
enticed away his younger sister regarding
which an FIR u/s 363, 366, 376 IPC is
lodged against him in which informant and
his family were pressurizing them for
settlement, - (iii) The offences alleged in
the FIR carry a maximum sentence of seven
years' imprisonment, - (iv) Besides the
St.ment of a named co-accused person,
there is no other material to prima facie
establish
applicant's
complicity
in
commission of the offence, - (v) even that
named accused person has not assigned
any specific role to the applicant - Held,
keeping
in
view
the
fact
that
the
proceedings
u/s
82
CrPC
have
been
initiated, this court has to consider the
other facts and circumstances of the case
also - Therefore, in view of the aforesaid
fact are sufficient for making out a case for
granting interim anticipatory Bail to the
applicant - Accordingly, is an interim
measure, and that till the next date of
listing applicant shall be released on interim
anticipatory bail - subject to any other
conditions that may be fixed by the trial
court - Application remains pending. (Para
- 23, 25, 26, 30)

Application remains pending, but interim
Bail granted. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Lavesh Vs State (NCT of Delhi): (2012) 8 SCC
730,

2. St. of M.P. Vs Pradeep Sharma - (2014) 2 SCC
171,

3. Vipin Kumar Dhir Vs St. of Pun. & anr.: (2021)
15 SCC 518

4. St. of Har. Vs Dharamraj: 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 1085,

5. Vipan Kumar Dhir Vs St. of Pun., (2021) 15
SCC 518.
12 All. Aaiya @ Irshad Ahmad Vs. State of U.P.
233
(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard SriManoj Kumar Singh, the
learned counsel for the applicant and
Anurag Verma, the learned Additional
Government Advocate-I
appearing
on
behalf of the State and perused the records.

2. The instant application has been
filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory
bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 320
of 2022 under Sections 120B, 201, 211,
195 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar,
District Bahraich.

3. The aforesaid case has been
registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged
on 27.09.2022 against 3 persons, not
including the applicant, stating that the
accused persons had beaten up the
informant's son and one of the accused -
Monu had fired at him. The informant had
suffered a gun-shot injury on his chest and
he fell down.During investigation, one of
the named accused persons Jafar Ahmad
alias Monu stated that the applicant was
involved in abduction and rape of his sister
regarding which an FIR bearing Case
Crime No.149 of 2022 was lodged under
Sections 363, 366 IPC on 14.06.2022. The
accused persons were pressurizing them for
entering into a settlement in that case and
for this reason, they manufactured the
incident and a false FIR had been lodged
by them.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of
the anticipatory bail-application, it has been
contended that the applicant is innocent, he
has been falsely implicated in the present
case and besides the case mentioned in the
statement of co-accused Jafar Ahmad, the
applicant has no criminal history. In that
case a final report has already been
submitted.

5. The learned counsel for the
applicant has submitted that co-accused,
Mohd Shamim who was informant in that
case, has been granted anticipatory bail by
means of the order dated 16.08.2023 passed
in
Criminal
Misc
Anticipatory
Bail
Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. 1801 of
2023.

6. The learned A.G.A.-I has opposed
the prayer for bail and has submitted that a
proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has
been issued against the applicant on
23.11.2023 and he has produced a copy of
the order dated 23.11.2023 for perusal of
the Court wherein it is recorded that the
police made repetitive efforts to arrest the
applicant but he is continuously evading
arrest and for this reason, the applicant
should not be granted anticipatory bail. IN
support of this submission, the learned
AGA-I has relied upon the judgments in the
cases of Lavesh versus State (NCT of
Delhi): (2012) 8 SCC 730, State of M.P.
versus Pradeep Sharma : (2014) 2 SCC
171, Vipin Kumar Dhir versus State of
Punjab & Another: (2021) 15 SCC 518
and State of Haryana vs Dharamraj: 2023
SCC OnLine SC 1085.

7. In Lavesh (supra), the wife of
younger brother of the appellant had
committed suicide after 1 year and 8
months of her marriage, while she was
pregnant. An FIR was lodged in this regard.
There were definite allegations against the
appellant and other family members that
they had subjected the deceased to cruelty
with a view to demand dowry right from
the date of marriage and also immediately
before date of her death.

8. It was stated in the counter affidavit
filed before the Supreme Court that "efforts
were made to arrest the petitioner but he
234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
absconded as such he was got declared a
Proclaimed Offender. The case is pending
trial".

9. In this background the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held in Lavesh (Supra)
that: -

"From
these
materials
and
information, it is clear that the present
appellant
was
not
available
for
interrogation and investigation and was
declared as "absconder". Normally, when
the accused is "absconding" and declared
as a "proclaimed offender", there is no
question of granting anticipatory bail. We
reiterate that when a person against whom
a warrant had been issued and is
absconding or concealing himself in order
to avoid execution of warrant and declared
as a proclaimed offender in terms of
Section 82 of the Code he is not entitled to
the relief of anticipatory bail."

10. Even after making the aforesaid
observations, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
considered the merits of the case and
recorded that another circumstance against
the appellant was that even though the
Hon'ble Supreme Court had granted
interim protection to the appellant, he did
not cooperate and visit the said police
station. In this factual background, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -

"15. Taking note of all these aspects,
in the light of the conditions prescribed in
Section 438 of the Code and conduct of the
appellant immediately after the incident as
well as after the interim protection granted
by this Court on 23-1-2012, we are of the
view that the appellant has not made out a
case for anticipatory bail. Unless free hand
is given to the investigating agency,
particularly, in the light of the allegations
made against the appellant and his family
members, the truth will not surface."

11. Thus it is not that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had rejected the application
has not maintainable on the ground that
issuance of a proclamation under Section
82 Cr.P.C. without considerations the
merits of the application.

12. In State of M.P. versus Pradeep
Sharma (Supra), the respondents had
administered poisonous substance to the
deceased. Statements of the witnesses and
the report of the department of Department
of
Forensic
Medicine
&
Toxicology
Government Medical College & Hospital,
Nagpur had confirmed the existence of
poison.
The
accused
persons
were
absconding from the very date of the
incident. Warrants were issued for arrest of
the
respondents
on
21.11.2012.
A
proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was
issued on 29.11.2012 requiring appearance
of both the respondents/ accused to answer
the complaint on 29.12.2012. The High
Court had granted bail to the respondents
by means of orders dated 10.01.2013 and
17.01.2013,
without
adverting
to
or
considering the aforesaid material and
without
indicating
any
reason.
'The
Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order
of the High Court by holding that: -

"It is relevant to point out that both
the accused are facing prosecution for
offences punishable under Sections 302 and
120-B read with Section 34 IPC. In such
serious
offences,
particularly,
the
respondent-accused
being
proclaimed
offenders, we are unable to sustain the
impugned orders of granting anticipatory
bail. The High Court failed to appreciate
that it is a settled position of law that where
the accused has been declared as an
12 All. Aaiya @ Irshad Ahmad Vs. State of U.P.
235
absconder and has not cooperated with the
investigation, he should not be granted
anticipatory bail."

13. Neither the benefit of Section 438
Cr.P.C. is available in the State of U.P. to
persons accused of committing offence
under Section 302 IPC, nor has the present
application been filed regarding that
offence. Moreover, it is clear that Pradeep
Sharma (supra) was also decided keeping
in view all the relevant facts and
circumstances of the case and not on the
sole ground of a proclamation under
Section 82 Cr.P.C. having been issued.

14. In Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of
Punjab, (2021) 15 SCC 518, the appellant,
who was the father of the deceased, had
lodged an FIR alleging that his daughter
was married to the son of respondentaccused on 28.07.2017. Soon thereafter, the
accused family members started to harass
and physically torture the deceased on the
pretext of dowry demands. His daughter
died an unnatural death on 02.10.2017 in
suspicious
circumstances.There
were
specific allegations vis-à-vis respondentaccused alleging that she exploited the
deceased and deprived her of any chance to
recuperate from the arduous domestic
chores and that due to non-fulfilment of the
dowry demands, the vicious cycle of
humiliation and abuse continued to be
meted out to the deceased. The accused
persons were alleged to have clandestinely
administered poison to the deceased on
01.10.2017, which led to her death the
following
morning.
The
factum
of
poisoning was supported by medical
evidence gathered by the investigating
agency. The Sessions Court had rejected
the
respondent's
anticipatory
bail
application on 21.12.2017. The application
for anticipatory bail filed before the High
Court was dismissed as withdrawn on
08.03.2018.
Meanwhile
the
Judicial
Magistrate issued warrants against the
respondent-accused from but the same
could not be executed as the respondentaccused had been on the run and on
23.04.2018 she was thus declared an
absconder under Section 82 Cr.P.C.The
respondent continued to evade her arrest
until the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted
anticipatory bail to her younger son Daksh
Adya on 22-10-2019. Thereafter the
respondent-accused filed two petitions
before the High Court, seeking quashing of
the order that declared her a "proclaimed
offender" and further sought anticipatory
bail. The High Court had granted interim
bail
to
the
respondent-accused
on
03.12.2020 and pursuant thereto, she joined
the investigation on 07.12.2020. Thereafter
the High Court allowed both the petitions
and set aside the order declaring the
respondent-accused as an absconder and
also granted her anticipatory bail primarily
on
two
grounds
-firstlythat
the
respondent-accused
had
joined
the
investigation and undertook to remain
present
at
each
date
of
trial
proceedings;secondlyshe was entitled to
seek parity with the co-accused Daksh
Adya whom the Hon'ble Supreme Court
had granted anticipatory bail.

15. In appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that: -

"12.Broadly speaking, each case has
its own unique factual scenario which
holds the key for adjudication of bail
matters including cancellation thereof. The
offence alleged in the instant case is
heinous and protrudes our medieval social
structure which still wails for reforms
despite multiple efforts made by legislation
and judiciary.
236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13.In the case in hand, the High Court
seems to have been primarily swayed by the
fact that the respondent-accused was
"cooperating" with investigation. This is,
however, contrary to the record as the
respondent-accused remained absconding
for more than two years after being
declared a proclaimed offender on 23-42018. She chose to join investigation only
after securing interim bail from the High
Court. She kept on hiding from the
investigating
agency
as
well
as
Magistrate's Court till she got protection
against arrest from the High Court in the
2nd round of bail proceedings.

14.Even if there was any procedural
irregularity in declaring the respondentaccused as an absconder, that by itself was
not a justifiable ground to grant pre-arrest
bail in a case of grave offence save where
the High Court on perusal of case diary
and other material on record is, prima
facie, satisfied that it is a case of false or
overexaggerated accusation. Such being
not the case here, the High Court went on a
wrong premise in granting anticipatory bail
to the respondent-accused."

16. State of Haryana versus
Dharamraj: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1085
was an appeal seeking cancellation of
anticipatory bail granted to the sole
respondent. The respondent was accused of
offences under Sections147, 148, 149, 323,
325,341,342,427186,353and364 IPC and
he had been declared a proclaimed
offender. It was submitted that there is
enough evidence to show his complicity
and further, based on this very order, other
co-accused persons were also granted
anticipatory bail, which does not serve
larger public interest. The High Court had
granted anticipatory bail for the following
reasons: -

(a) That the maximum sentence for the
offences in the First Information Report did
not exceed 7 years.

(b)
That
the
possibility
of
the
respondent influencing the investigation,
tampering with evidenceet al, could be
taken care of by imposing stringent
conditions.

(c) That the respondent's declaration
as a proclaimed offender was not on
account of him deliberately avoiding court.

(d) That the respondent was a firsttime offender and deserved a chance to
'reform and course correct'.

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
allowed the appeal by observing that
Section364,IPCcarries
a
term
of
imprisonment
for
life
or
rigorous
imprisonment of ten years and fine and the
view taken by the High Court was
apparently wrong. The High Court also lost
sight of the fact that the respondent was a
declared
proclaimed
offender.
The
respondent was declared a proclaimed
offender
on
05.02.2021,
and
sought
anticipatory bail from the High Court only
in
October,
2021.
In
this
factual
background, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that: -

"17.The respondent, without first
successfully assailing the order declaring
him as a proclaimed offender, could not
have proceeded to seek anticipatory bail.
Looking to the factual prism, we are clear
that the respondent's application under
Section438,CrPCshould not have been
entertained, as he was a proclaimed
offender."

18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
further held that "Of course, in an
exceptional and rare case, this Court or
the High Courts can consider a plea
12 All. Aaiya @ Irshad Ahmad Vs. State of U.P.
237
seeking anticipatory bail, despite the
applicant being a proclaimed offender,
given that the Supreme Court and High
Courts are Constitutional Courts."

19. In none of the cases cited by the
learned A.G.A. - I, the application for
anticipatory bail was rejected as not
maintainable and in all the cases, the merits
of the application were considered after
taking into the facts and circumstances of
that particular case. In Vipin Kumar Dhir
(Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
specifically clarified that each case has its
own unique factual scenario which holds
the key for adjudication of bail matters.
Thus it is clear that the issuance of a
proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is
one of the factors which weighs against the
applicant, but at the same time, the other
facts and circumstances of the case have
also to be taken into consideration.

20. Moreover, Section 82 Cr.P.C.
provides as follows: -

"82.
Proclamation
for
person
absconding.- (1) If any Court has reason
to believe (whether after taking evidence or
not) that any person against whom a
warrant has been issued by it has
absconded or is concealing himself so that
such warrant cannot be executed, such
Court may publish a written proclamation
requiring him to appear at a specified place
and at a specified time not less than thirty
days from the date of publishing such
proclamation.

(2)
The
proclamation
shall
be
published as follows:-

(i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some
conspicuous place of the town or village in
which such person ordinarily resides;

(b) it shall be affixed to some
conspicuous
part
of
the
house
or
homestead in which such person ordinarily
resides or to some conspicuous place of
such town or village;

(c) sa copy thereof shall be affixed to
some conspicuous part of the Court house;

(ii) the Court may also, if it thinks fit,
direct a copy of the proclamation to be
published in a daily newspaper circulating
in the place in which such person
ordinarily resides.

(3) A statement in writing by the Court
issuing the proclamation to the effect that
the proclamation was duly published on a
specified day, in the manner specified in
clause (i) of sub-section (2), shall be
conclusive evidence that the requirements
of this section have been complied with,
and that the proclamation was published on
such day.

1[(4) Where a proclamation published
under sub-section (1) is in respect of a
person accused of an offence punishable
under Section 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392,
393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400,
402, 436, 449, 459 or 460 of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860), and such person
fails to appear at the specified place and
time required by the proclamation, the
Court may, after making such inquiry as it
thinks fit, pronounce him a proclaimed
offender and make a declaration to that
effect.

(5) The provisions of sub-sections (2)
and (3) shall apply to a declaration made
by the Court under sub-section (4) as they
apply to the proclamation published under
sub-section (1).

21. In the present case, a proclamation
under Section 82 (1) Cr.P.C has been issued
on 23.11.2023 requiring the applicant to
appear before the Court. However, there is
nothing on record to indicate that the
proclamation has been 'published' as
provided under Sub-section (1) of Section
238 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
82 Cr.P.C., as there is no material to
indicate that the proclamation was publicly
read in some conspicuous place of the town
or village in which the applicant ordinarily
resides or that it has been affixed to some
conspicuous part of the house or homestead
in which the applicant ordinarily resides or
to some conspicuous place of such town or
village or a copy of the proclamation has
been affixed to some conspicuous part of
the Court house or that it has been
published in a daily newspaper circulating
in the place in which the applicant
ordinarily resides, which are the modes of
publication mandated in Sub-section (2) of
Section 82 Cr.P.C. The Court issuing the
proclamation has not made any statement
in writing as provided in Sub-section (3) of
Section 82 Cr.P.C. to the effect that the
proclamation was duly published in the
manner specified in clause (i) of subsection (2). When the proclamation has not
even been published as per the law, the
occasion for the applicant being "declared"
a proclaimed offender has not yet arisen.

22. The proclamation under Section
82 Cr.P.C. was issued on 23.11.2023 and
before the applicant having been declared a
proclaimed
offender,
he
filed
an
anticipatory bail application before the
Session Court on 28.11.2023 i.e. merely
five days after issuance of the proclamation
under Section 82 (1) Cr.P.C. His application
was rejected by the learned Sessions Court
on 01.12.2023 and soon thereafter he filed
an application before this court on
15.12.2023.
Therefore,
in
this
circumstance, it cannot be said that the
applicant has been evading the arrest and
proceedings are held up due to his noncooperation since a considerable period.

23. Therefore, while keeping in view
the fact that the proceedings under Section
82 (1) Cr.P.C. for declaring the applicant to
be a 'proclaimed offender' have been
initiated, this Court has to consider the
other facts and circumstances of the case
also.

24. Allegations in the FIR are against
3 named accused persons Monu, Matin and
Salim @ Bantru for commission of offence
under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC. The FIR
alleges the informant's youngest son
Shakeel had got married to one Shabrin
about 1 1⁄2 years ago and Shabrin died about
five months ago. Thereafter, Shakeel
enticed away Shabrin's younger sister Iqra,
but subsequently she went back under the
pressure of her family members. Monu
brother of Iqra, was angry for this reason
and he had stated in presence of some
unspecified persons that he would ruin the
family of Shakeel. Due to the aforesaid
animosity the named accused persons had
assaulted the informant's son Shakeel and
Monu had fired at the chest of Rafique.

25. The medico legal examination
report of the injured person mentions two
fire
arm
injuries.
However,
some
independent witnesses stated that no gunshot was fired at the spot, although a person
riding
between
other
persons
on
a
motorcycle was crying that he had been
shot and he had been taken away. One of
the named accused persons Zafar Ahmad
alias Monu had stated that Shakeel Ahmad
and the applicant had enticed away his
younger sister on 11.06.2022, regarding
which an F.I.R. No. 149 of 2022, under
Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. was lodged on
14.06.2022. After recovery of his sister and
recording of her statement, Section 376
I.P.C. was added in that case and its
investigation was continuing. The family
members of Shakeel, the applicant, Altaf
and Chhotkan were pressurizing them for
12 All. Jai Prakash Verma & Ors. Vs. Sri Ravindra Kumar Tomar, Director & Anr.
239
settlement in the aforesaid case and with
this object they had manufactured the
incident and on the basis of this statement,
the applicant was made an accused.

26. The offence alleged are Section
120-B, 201, 211, 195 I.P.C., which carry a
maximum punishment of imprisonment up
to seven years. Besides the statement of a
named co-accused person, there is no other
material to prima facie establish applicant's
complicity in commission of the offence.
Even that named accused person has not
assigned any specific role to the applicant.

27. The matter requires consideration.

28. The learned A.G.A. may file a
counter affidavit within one week from
today.

29. Having considered the aforesaid
facts and circumstances of the case, I am of
the view that the aforesaid facts are
sufficient for making out a case for
granting interim anticipatory bail to the
applicant.

30. Accordingly, as an interim
measure, it is provided that that till next
date of listing in the event of arrest/
appearance of applicant before the learned
Trial Court in the aforesaid case, he shall be
released on interim anticipatory bail on his
furnishing personal bond and two solvent
sureties, each in the like amount, to the
satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on
the following conditions and subject to any
other conditions that may be fixed by the
Trial Court:

(i). That the applicant shall appear
before the trial court on each date fixed,
unless personal presence is exempted;

(ii). That the applicant shall not,
directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the court
or to any police officer or tamper with the
evidence;

(iii). That the applicant shall not
pressurize/
intimidate
the
prosecution
witness.

31. List this case in the week
commencing 08.01.2024.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 239
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Contempt Application (Civil) No. 1336 of 2023

Jai Prakash Verma & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
Sri Ravindra Kumar Tomar, Director & Anr.
 ...Opp.Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Vinod Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
--

Contempt of Court - Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 - Section 12 - Law is trite that if
any Constitutional Court passes any order
and no interim order/final order is passed
against that order and if that order attains
finality, no other interpretation is possible
by any authority of the State except to
comply that order in its letter and spirit,
further the compliance of the order of
Constitutional Court may not depend upon
the guidelines of the superior authority of
the State Government - Contempt petition
was
dismissed
on
the
affidavit
of
compliance
of
opposite
party
no.
4